Even Zohar, an Israeli scholar is generally regarded as the
founder of this theory influenced by Russian Formalism. Before going into the
depth of this theory it would be better to define what translation is
basically.
Translating is defined as the process of rereading and rewriting for target-language audiences, which distinguishes translations from their original versions in that they take on a new language, a new culture, new readers, and a new point of view with each translation.
Now let’s back to the theory.
Polysystem theory, according to Shuttleworth and Cowie, is a theory that explains the behavior and evolution of literary systems. The word "polysystem" refers to a layered collection of interrelated orders that alters and mutates as they interact with one another.
Tynjanov asserts that a literary work can be studied in
isolation rather it can be studied in a literary system. A literary system is a system of functions of the literary order
which is connected to the other orders. The key concept here is the system and
it can be added that literature is part of the social, cultural, literary, and
historical framework in which there is an ongoing dynamic of mutation and
struggle to gain the primary position.
To put it another way, the translated literature that is brought
into a nation has the potential to impact the native works. According to
various causes and consequences, these impacts might be more or less in. Even
Zohar observes that there appears to be no knowledge of the function of
translated literature for literature as a whole, or of its place within that
literature, nor the possibility of translated literature as a literary system.
The prevalent idea is that of "translation" or simply
"translated works" that are processed on a case-by-case basis.
Even Zohar emphasizes the importance of translated literature
and it works in this way.
1. in the manner in which the TL chooses works for translation.
2. In how other co-systems impact translation norms, behavior,
and policy.
Even Zohar proposed the concept of central position and peripheral
position. Let’s discuss it.
Every country's literature, as we know, comprises both
"original" and "translated" texts. Each of these types
might hold a major or peripheral place in a country's literary system. Original
compositions take precedence at times, while translated works take precedence
at other times. He argues that if translated literature
has a pivotal position in the literary polysystem, it actively contributes to
the development of the polysystem's core. As a result, if translated literature
finds itself in this scenario, it will be a significant event in a country's
literary history.
Even-Zohar identifies three fundamental situations in which
translated literature might take precedence in a country:
1.
When a polysystem has not yet formed, i.e.
when literature is 'young and still developing.
2.
When literature is 'peripheral, weak,' or
both.
3.
When a literary work reaches a turning point,
a crisis, or a literary void.
If translated literature takes on a secondary role, then it has
little influence on the core system and even turn’s conservative, conserving
traditional forms and adhering to the target system's literary conventions. The
overall discussion can be summed up in these words that polysystem theory
gained a lot of criticism and objections in the sense that universal laws of
translation based on relatively little evidence, and so on but it is one of the
theories which allows translated works to get greater attention and impact
since all of the pieces within the system are examined in connection to one
another.
